Appeal 2007-3256
Application 10/900,619
broadest reasonable construction, do not require two separate compositions,
i.e., the color effect composition and tactile effect composition may be the
same composition (Answer 5).
In our view, the Examiner’s claim interpretation is reasonable in light
of the Specification disclosure (see Findings of Fact 1-3). Appellants have
not presented persuasive arguments or evidence in support of a narrower
claim construction. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s claim construction.
Prior Art Rejections
Appellants contend that the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie
showing of anticipation. Appellants argue that JP ‘976 does not
affirmatively teach the use of both a color effect composition and a tactile
effect composition (Br. 2). Appellants likewise assert that Munro is directed
to a color effect composition and does not teach the use of a tactile effect
composition (Br. 3).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Rather, we are in
agreement with the Examiner’s determination that both JP ‘976 and Munro
disclose substrates coated with a layer comprising a color effect composition
and a layer comprising tactile effect composition as claimed, i.e.,
compositions which impart a desired color and a desired feel, for the reasons
well stated in the Answer (see Findings of Fact 7-14). As pointed out by the
Examiner, the claims are not limited to “any particular tactile composition or
any particular ‘desired feel’ or tactile properties” (Answer 5). Moreover, JP
‘976 specifically discusses the “touch feel” of its coatings, noting that this
property was “evaluated as the degree of soft feel by touching with a hand”
(Finding of Fact 10). While Munro does not specifically mention tactile
effect, because Munro discloses the use of his compositions in a variety of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013